We have an anti spam system in place that will not allow signing up/logging in with email addresses that contain words like "spam", "junk" or curse words. We do this as a precautionary measure to prevent spammers from polluting the system and protect our users privacy.
You can write to support directly through your inbox rather than using the contact form at MyHeritage.com. The mail will reach us then.
Sometimes, jumping from one branch of the family tree to another, one can loose a track of relation or navigation direction. For example, if one goes to a list of tree members (on Family Tree page) and open member X's personal page, then go to "View in tree" link, he or she could end up on family tree view page with member X as starting person and no trace how that person is connected to the principal one. One can always start form the beginning view of the tree, but it is not the point.
I think, it would be a great feature for the online tree to list the person's relation status to the principal person of the three (i.e. from the point of view of the person reviewing the tree after logging in). That relation status could be shown in the area where all personal data of the selected person are listed, for example, next to the picture below the name and years of birth and death but above the list of all pictures and events.
It becomes very important in big trees, where one could go too far from its own position to determine the relation visually or jump on tree branches that are displayed in their own pages without showing the principal person of the tree.
Further, it might be useful to indicate blood relatives on the tree (again more important in big trees) to help determine in which direction one should go from the given position on the tree to get back to him- or herself.
In addition, on pages that do not display the principal person of the tree, tree branch links that could lead to the principal person of the tree, should be marked somehow to indicate that.
I have a couple of suggestions regarding the Family Tree Builder software.
Some things that are annoying about the current program (which is already great, by the way) are that if no relationship is listed, they're automatically listed as Married instead of Unknown, which is not, I believe, safe or logical to suppose. Also, the program does not allow for complex or multiple relationships. Instead of having only one relationship field per couple, it would be better to have a relationship status field, then a new divorce date or separation date field if the couple separates, without having to omit their marriage information. It is also annoying to me that every time I add a new spouse to someone who is divorced or whatever, it gives me an error message, as though nobody ever has more than one spouse. Some people have multiple spouses at the same time! I would also love it if all spouses could be viewed at once. If spouses are somehow relate, it would also be great for the program to visually represent that rather than make duplicates of the person they are both related to, which is very confusing.
Also, it would simplify inputting lineage data if one could simply add citation info for many people at once instead of having to enter the same information for each and every person. I also don't really like that daughters of single mothers have their maiden name automatically set to their mother's maiden name, as this is actually never the case, and only takes time to correct and leads to confusion.
I hope this feedback helps those working on updating the program, whenever that happens. I look forward to a future update!
1. We do indeed assume a couple is married if no information about the relationship status is entered manually. This is a convenience to most - but you are right, maybe in today's world it's not the best way to treat things anymore. ;) If we get enough feedback we may change it.
2. Whenever a new event happens for a couple it should be added as a separate fact. If the couple marries - fact #1. If the couple separates - fact #2. Divorce - fact #3. This way you don't have to omit any information.
3. When you add multiple spouses you do get a message asking if you are sure you want to add another spouse. It's just a precaution, nothing more. I'll record a feature request to add the ability to turn this warning off in the Tools > Options menu.
4. In Family Tree Builder it is possible to view only one couple at a time. You don't have to make duplicate individuals though if you have married cousins in the tree for example. Just use the Attach Spouse feature in the Edit > Spouses menu to create a link between two existing persons in the tree.
5. Adding citation data for multiple persons at once is a good suggestion.You are correct, there isn't a feature to allow you to do that yet.
6. I wasn't able to reproduce the 'daughters of single mothers take the mother's maiden name' scenario. As far as I am aware a daughter of a single mother doesn't have a maiden name automatically filled in.
Wonder if you've got any further in thinking about these issues - with which I agree.
Here's a scenario: a couple are bringing up a child who is biologically only one of theirs. It seems the only way to represent this honestly is to create an "unknown" ex-spouse. And then the child doesn't show up in the family...
Would be good if all spouses, and all children, showed up.
And would be good if a child could be linked to just one parent.
Yes, currently an "unknown" spouse will be added to a child if only one of his parents were entered in the tree, as in the current logic we use each child needs to have 2 parents connected to him (either 2 natural, 2 biological or both).
It would be nice if we were able to delete the smart match after viewing it, since a lot of them are not matches or we have already contacted the other smart match other wise they just keep building up.
The biggest problem with smart matches is that so many members have multiple trees, so, if they have say 5 trees, I get 5 duplicated matches, 10 trees 10 matches and so on. Also, it would be good to have a "Uncertain" tick box for where there is not quite enough evidence to be sure about a match.
You misunderstand the request. I understerstand that you can rate the other match, I would like to have the ability to rate each of my own people/information so I can tell "with a query or report" who has been researched, at what level I have confidence in my own data, some marker that indicated that a lineage is a dead end and research is complete. If that tag followed into Smart Match, I could also see the confidence that they have in their own data.
One thing I miss with this software is that there does not appear to be any provision for printing an alpha and/or numeric listing of the database. This is one thing I miss after coming across from my previous software (which is no longer available or supported due to retirement of the developer). I don't know if there are other genealogy software with this feature. So therefore would it be possible to have:
1) An alpha listing with the choice of :
a)First Name first and:
b) Last Name first.
2) A numeric listing.
3) A choice of either.
This would really round off a FANTASTIC software.
I have looked at all the options for printing of charts and reports but can't see what I want. I apologise if it is there and I have missed it
I hope you will seriously consider this, as I know some of the surnames I have entered are all upper-case and some are a mixture of upper and lower-case, but I can't tell which is which from the list and the cards. I want to have a printed list all in upper-case. An example is McDONALD/MacDONALD as those names show as MCDONALD/MACDONALD.
A listing would help me find which Names need to be altered to upper-case. They show up on the person's edit screen, but I don't want to have to go through 3500 plus names!!! to alter them
Sorry for being so"long-winded" with this request.
My Family history is under 12 different family names, and some info is common to more than one family, What I would like to know is can I, by using the Export/Import from/to Excel, place info from one export to another and then import back to the other tree. Does that make sense?